Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. You have my commitment to do so.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of our side, I have to object.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up the following amendments: Cruz No. 1384; Menendez No. 1430; and Brown-Portman No. 1252; further, that amendment No. 1252 not be subject to any points of order under rule XXII.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as everybody should know, both the distinguished Senator from Oregon and I have tried to work these amendments out, and we were unsuccessful. There were objections and, therefore, I apologize that we weren't able to do more. But cloture was invoked, and that is the rule, I guess. Amendment No. 1411, as Modified I wish to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Hatch-Wyden amendment No. 1411. If adopted, our amendment would strengthen the negotiating objective in the TPA bill relating to currency manipulation. Specifically, it would provide our country with a multitude of tools to address currency manipulation in the context of free-trade agreements, including enhanced transparency, disclosure, reporting, monitoring, and cooperative mechanisms, as well as enforceable rules. As we all know, this amendment is filed as an alternative to the Portman-Stabenow currency amendment, and it is superior in a number of ways. I know that many of my colleagues are sincerely concerned about currency manipulation and want to do something to address this issue. I share those concerns, which is why Senator Wyden and I introduced this alternative currency amendment that provides a more sensible approach-- one that has been endorsed by leaders in the administration, the business community, and elsewhere. Unlike the Portman-Stabenow amendment, the Hatch-Wyden amendment would not derail the TPP negotiations. Unlike Portman-Stabenow, the Hatch-Wyden amendment poses no threat to America's monetary independence. Unlike the Portman-Stabenow amendment, the Hatch-Wyden amendment would prevent future trade and currency wars. And unlike Portman-Stabenow, the Hatch-Wyden amendment would promote greater monitoring and transparency of our trading partners' currency practices and keep manipulation practices out of the shadows. And, probably most importantly, unlike Portman-Stabenow, the Hatch-Wyden amendment would not kill TPA.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. HATCH. In fact, 30 seconds will be fine. Indeed, of the two currency amendments that are now pending in the Senate, the Hatch-Wyden amendment is the only one that stands a chance of ever becoming law. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to allow us to more effectively address currency manipulation without killing the TPA bill. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Portman- Stabenow amendment No. 1299. This is important to me. There has been a lot of debate and discussion on this amendment. Currency manipulation is a complex issue. But the fact is the vote on this amendment is not complex at all. A vote for the Portman-Stabenow amendment is a vote to kill TPA. We know that. The administration has made it abundantly clear that President Obama will veto any TPA bill that contains this amendment. A vote for the Portman-Stabenow amendment is also a vote to kill TPP. We know that as well. Many of our negotiating partners have already indicated that they will not agree to standards required by this amendment. The President of the United States opposes this amendment. The Secretary of the Treasury opposes this amendment. The Secretary of Agriculture opposes this amendment. All living former Treasury Secretaries, Republicans and Democrats alike, oppose the approach taken by this amendment. All I can say is, that being the case, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Portman-Stabenow amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. We intend to work with her and see what we can do. I want to put that in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Brown amendment, No. 1251. I agree that it would not be advantageous for the United States to become part of a trade agreement that includes China--or any other country, for that matter--without adequate oversight and approval by Congress. However, all of our existing trade agreements require congressional approval before new parties can be added after the agreement is signed. It is also required under our TPA bill. The very possibility of a trade agreement with the United States is a powerful incentive we can use to encourage other countries to raise their standards and institute reforms in order to meet the objectives of existing agreements. If we require a separate congressional vote before our negotiators can even talk to new countries, we will be giving up one of our best tools that we can use to spur reform and advance our country's values abroad. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Brown amendment. I yield the floor. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I don't want to take too much time, but I do just say in advance of this next vote that I am very appreciative of my colleagues who have worked with us to get to this point. This next vote is obviously a big one. I hope we can keep together. The bipartisan coalition of Senators who have helped get us this far has been important. I think we will once again. I just want to reiterate that this is a good bipartisan bill, one that reflects the priorities of Senators from both parties and in both Chambers of Congress. This next vote will take us one step closer to allowing Congress to set the terms of our trade negotiations and giving our negotiators the tools they need to get the best deals possible. This bill will do a lot of good for the American economy, our workers, and our job creators looking to sell more of their products overseas. But we are not there yet. We need to get past this next hurdle. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to personally thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon for the work he has done on this bill. It couldn't have been done without him. A number of other people on his side have been very contributory and helpful. We are not there yet, but we are going to work at it. I just have to say how much I have enjoyed working with him on the floor so far. I just hope everything will go smoothly so we can get this bill up and out and get the President what he needs to conclude these negotiations and also especially for our Trade Representative. Mr. Froman has done a very good job, as far as I can see. We will have to see what the TPP is like, but we will all have a chance to look at it for a considerable period of time before we have to vote on anything regarding that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate will soon be voting to confirm Justice Jill Parrish's nomination from the Utah Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Justice Parrish, who currently sits on the Utah Supreme Court, is extraordinarily well-prepared to fill this vacancy, and I hope and expect that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support her nomination. Justice Parrish is a well-known and highly regarded leader in the Utah legal community, who has served with honor and distinction on the Supreme Court of Utah. Her sharp legal mind, breadth of experience, and impressive judicial temperament prepared her to serve on the Federal bench. I cannot think of a more qualified nominee to fill this vacancy at this time. I support Justice Parrish's nomination in the strongest possible terms, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. As a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have long worked to secure confirmations for the most qualified judicial nominees. In fact, I have participated in the appointment of three-quarters of the judges who have ever served on the U.S. District Court for the District Utah. That experience has given me a sense, both personally and professionally, of the kind of individual who will serve well on the Federal bench. That experience gives me every reason to strongly recommend Justice Parrish for this appointment. Justice Parrish is a talented jurist with an impressive background. After graduating from Yale Law School, she distinguished herself in private practice before appointment to the Utah Supreme Court. During her 30-year service, she has established a record of excellence both before and behind the bench, in both State and Federal courts, in both the private and public sector, and in both trial and appellate courts. The American Bar Association gave Justice Parrish a ``well- qualified'' rating--a distinction the organization only awards to experienced nominees with the most remarkable legal ability and the highest reputation for integrity. Federal nominees who receive the ``well-qualified'' rating are also known for their breadth of experience, their success in the legal community, and their capacity for judicial temperament. Not only does Justice Parrish match the ABA's requirements, but in every respect, she exceeds them. The United States has the most respected judiciary in the world, and we expect our nominees to the Federal bench to have a record of accomplishment in their chosen area of legal expertise. Justice Parrish is remarkable in that she has not just one but multiple areas of expertise, bringing keen judgment to an appointment that requires a broad range of experiences. I have every confidence that Justice Parrish will serve admirably as a district judge, just as she has served honorably on the Utah Supreme Court. I might say, in supporting her confirmation, I wish to thank Senator Lee, who is not only my colleague on the Judiciary Committee but also my partner in representing our great State and in recommending the best candidate for judicial appointment. We agree that Justice Parrish is a well-qualified nominee, and we strongly recommend her swift and unanimous confirmation. I call on my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to support her nomination. I know this woman personally. I know her very, very well. All of the qualities I have been speaking about I have personally observed. I think everybody here knows how seriously I take appointments to the Federal bench. In this particular case, I feel very, very good about this nomination. I ask my colleagues to vote for her.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate will shortly vote on cloture----

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, will the Senator withhold so I can make a short speech, less than a minute?

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Nevada. Madam President, I thank all our colleagues for their support in helping us get this far. This last vote was a major step forward on this important legislation. We have a few more votes we are going to have to do, and we are getting very close to maybe doing this very important bill. I hope that now that we have taken this step, we can find a way to finish this legislation in short order, and I am willing to work with my colleagues to get us there. Once again, I thank everyone who supported this today. It means a lot to me personally. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, one concern I have heard from opponents of the trade promotion authority is that trade agreements currently under discussion have been negotiated behind closed doors and that by renewing TPA, Congress would be enabling and even encouraging further secrecy. I am going to talk more on this in a minute, but there are 30 days before the President signs, 60 days after he signs where this will become well known. So I have to object to my dear colleagues' bill--I guess it is a bill at this time. I just have to object.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard this concern from opponents of trade promotion authority from time to time--that trade agreements currently under discussion have been negotiated behind closed doors and that by reviewing TPA, Congress would be enabling and even encouraging further secrecy. These arguments are particularly being made about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which is not before us. Of course, we need to keep in mind that every Senator complaining about this supposed secrecy associated with TPP has had an opportunity to read through the current text of the agreement. And the agreement is not yet concluded. It won't be unless we pass TPA. At the same time, I would be very surprised if these same Senators decrying the secrecy of the TPP negotiations also believe that contract negotiations between unions and management should be made public or that it would be a wise negotiating tactic for a private citizen negotiating the sale of their home to post all the offers they have received on the Internet. My point is that in the midst of any high-stakes negotiation, some level of confidentiality is essential to getting a good deal, and especially in this case. That said, I certainly understand the concerns about transparency, particularly when our government is negotiating on behalf of our country. Fortunately, our TPA bill strikes a good balance to address these very concerns. Our TPA bill goes further than any previous version of TPA to promote transparency and congressional oversight of the whole trade negotiation process. First of all, under our bill, the full text of a completed trade agreement must be made public at least 60 days before the President can even sign it, giving the American people unprecedented access and knowledge of all trade agreements before they are signed and well before they are submitted to Congress. In addition, the President must submit to Congress the legal text of a trade agreement and a statement of administrative action at least 30 days before submitting an implementing bill. On top of that, our bill ensures that any Member of Congress who wants access to the unredacted negotiated text at any time during the negotiations will get it. In addition, Members of Congress will--once again, at any time during the negotiations--be able to request and receive a briefing from the U.S. Trade Representative's office on the status of the negotiations. Our bill also creates in statute a transparency officer at USTR who will consult with Congress and advise the USTR on transparency policies. This will help ensure that there are consistent transparency policies across the Agency and promote greater public understanding of trade negotiations. Now, let's be clear. I, as well as other authors of this legislation, understand the concerns we have heard from both inside and outside Congress about the need for greater transparency in the trade negotiation process. We have really worked hard to address these concerns in this legislation, and in particular the concerns of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who is a good friend, whom I admire, and who I think has brought a certain dimension to this Senate that is very important. In short, any Member of Congress who is concerned about a lack of transparency in trade negotiations should be a cosponsor of this TPA bill--that is, of course, if they are also supporters of expanded markets for U.S. exporters and the creation of high-paying American jobs. Those who oppose TPA and trade agreements outright will likely continue to use this supposed lack of transparency as an excuse to oppose the bill. Those with genuine concerns will see that this bill is the right approach. And we have tried to make it the right approach. I believe it is the right approach. I believe the administration says it is the right approach. I know the Trade Representative says it is the right approach. He has bent over backwards to inform us and to open his office and to open matters into these not-yet-concluded agreements. There is plenty of time for us to look at those agreements--any agreement that comes--and make up our own determinations at that time. So I don't believe the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will be deprived of an ability to look into these matters, completely test the transparency, and look at these agreements in ways that I think would please any reasonable person. With that, I have had to object, but I hope we can pursue this bill and get it through as soon as we can because it will be a banner day for the President, I have to admit. He is my President, but he is not my party; yet, he is right on this. For the life of me, I can't understand why we are having so much difficulty with his and my friends on the other side. We ought to be supporting a President who has bent over backwards, through his Trade Representative and those around him, to be as open as he possibly can on this matter, at least at this particular time and I believe afterwards as well. I always feel bad when I have to object to a person's unanimous consent request, but I do object.

Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate will shortly vote on cloture on the Hatch substitute amendment, legislation to renew trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance. I know some of my colleagues have concerns about the process. Let me say that I also share those concerns. From the very beginning of our discussions over 3 years ago on the renewal of TPA, I have done all I could to listen to all of my colleagues and address their concerns. I first worked with Chairman Baucus to find a way to update TPA in a way that addresses many of the issues that have arisen since 2002, including concerns over labor and the environment. When Senator Wyden became chairman of the Finance Committee, I again went to the negotiating table to try to address many of the transparency and procedural issues he raised, and we again came to a bipartisan compromise. When many of my Senate colleagues said renewal of TAA was a necessary component to passing TPA, I again did my best to meet those concerns, even though I myself have significant reservations about the program. Throughout the Finance Committee consideration, I tried to conduct an open and fair process, which allowed many Members of the committee, even those who opposed TPA, the opportunity to be heard and to have their amendments adopted. As a result, the committee reported out four pieces of trade legislation, all with strong bipartisan support. I will acknowledge that the process on the floor has not gone the way any of us would like. At the outset of this endeavor, I stated my commitment to a full, fair, and open debate over our TPA legislation. The majority leader made a similar commitment, and I know that was our intention. Indeed, from the very beginning, we had planned to hear everyone's arguments and consider a number of amendments. This is how the Senate is supposed to function. Once again, we intended to let it function that way. Unfortunately, there were some who did not want to let that happen. They were, from the very beginning, committed to slow-walking this process and preventing regular order. That is just a fact. I know there are some who want to blame the majority leader for filing cloture and trying to move this process forward. I am sure some are thinking of voting against cloture this morning in protest. That would be a grave mistake. Let me remind my colleagues that we tried to move to the bill at the beginning of last week. I know, after the many recent long days on the floor, that seems like a long time ago, but I think everyone here can recall what happened. We attempted to get on the bill, and we were prevented from doing so. After we found a way to address our colleagues' concerns, we were finally able to begin debate on the TPA bill, but even then the process was slow-going. As debate began, the majority leader attempted to keep the Senate open on Friday and into the weekend to allow Senators to debate and offer amendments. However, the Senate minority leader objected, which prevented the process from moving forward and set us back even further. Then, we came to this week and debate finally began in earnest. Shortly thereafter, a new strategy emerged, wholly supported by the opponents of TPA. The strategy has been simple: Prevent any amendments from being called up and object to any and all unanimous consent requests. I have been here on the floor all week, and I have witnessed firsthand the deployment of this plan to frustrate the process and to prevent a full and fair debate on trade policy. Now here we are facing a cloture vote and the prospect of cutting off debate. It is unfortunate that it has come to this, but given the total lack of cooperation we faced and continue to face on this bill, this is really the only option left. Invoking cloture is not the end. If we can get agreement with our colleagues, I expect there will still be opportunities to call up and vote on amendments, but we cannot just sit around and wait for solutions to come together on their own. If any Senator has a proposal for a path forward that will reasonably satisfy the various demands and objections that have been raised and allow us to break the logjam on amendments, I am all ears. Until then, our only choice is to press forward. We could extend this debate forever and still not satisfy every demand; there is no question about that. But this bill is far too important. I have done all I can to address legitimate concerns, and as a result, the bill is supported by me, Chairman Ryan from the House Ways and Means Committee, Ranking Member Wyden from the Finance Committee, and, most importantly, the President of the United States. Let's be real here. We need to get this bill passed. Just this morning, I read that a ministerial that was to begin this month has been canceled, in large part due to the fact that Congress has not approved this bill. Our Nation's economic health and prestige are on the line here today. The TPA bill is the only way Congress can effectively assert its priorities in our ongoing trade negotiations. It is the only way we can ensure that our trade negotiators can reach good deals with our trading partners. It is the only way we can ensure that our pending trade agreements even have a shot at reaching the finish line. As I have stated many times here on the floor this week, I am well aware that some of our colleagues here in the Senate oppose this bill outright and will do everything in their power to keep it from passing. As much as I have tried to change hearts and minds on these issues, there is very little I can do about that. But I also know that there is a bipartisan majority of Senators who support TPA and who, despite concerns about process, want to get this done. We are still in a position to reach a positive outcome on this bill. I said at the beginning of this debate that this was quite possibly the most important debate we will have this year in Congress. It is President Obama's top legislative priority. It is a very high priority for many of us in Congress. On the substance, this is a good TPA bill, one Senators from both parties can support. It needs to pass. We need to pass it for the American workers who want good, high-paying jobs. We need to pass it for our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs who need access to foreign markets in order to compete. We need to pass it to maintain our standing in the world and continue to advance American values and interests on the world stage. We need to pass it to demonstrate to the American people that despite our many disagreements, their elected representatives are capable of addressing important issues and solving real problems. There is a path forward here, one that will still allow us to be successful, but in order to get there, we need Senators to support cloture this morning. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on cloture. It is crucial, it is of paramount concern, and it is something very highly wished for by the President of the United States and by a bipartisan majority in this body. I hope we will vote yes on cloture here today. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my partner and his kind comments and his intelligent comments here this morning. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the following amendments en bloc: 1, Boxer No. 1371; 2, Whitehouse No. 1387; 3, Brown No. 1252, to level the playing field; 4, Feinstein No. 1424; 5, Menendez No. 1430; 6, Paul No. 1383; 7, Paul No. 1408; 8, Sullivan No. 1246; 9, Sessions No. 1233; 10, Cruz No. 1384; 11, Cardin No. 1230; 12, Paul No. 1408.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business until 4 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that the time during morning business count postcloture.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to talk once again about Congress's role in advancing our Nation's trade policies and specifically on the increasingly important issues of digital trade and intellectual property rights. Let's keep in mind that the last time Congress passed TPA was in 2002. We live in a very different world than we did 13 years ago. Technology is vastly different. Commerce is vastly different. For example, in 2002, less than 700 million people worldwide had access to the Internet. Last year, that figure reached nearly 3 billion--with a ``b''--3 billion people. In 2002, e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and eBay were just beginning to gain widespread use. Special media sites and other platforms that today drive so much Internet traffic and user-generated content--sites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter-- did not even exist. In the last 13 years, an entirely new economy has developed based on these online platforms. Today, Facebook has around 1.4 billion--with a ``b''--active users, with approximately 83 percent living outside of the United States of America and Canada. YouTube has more than 1 billion users, with local interfaces in 75 countries and compatibility with 61 different languages. Mobile technology has similarly been transformed since 2002, as the term ``smart phone'' has become part of our regular vocabulary. Mobile phones were big and clunky in 2002 and were not good for much more than making phone calls. Today, smart phones perform a myriad of functions, including streaming video from the Internet, video calling, digital photography and videography, and GPS locating, just to mention a few. The growth of the Internet and mobile technologies has transformed our economy, the products and services we buy, and how we buy them. The advances have significantly reduced the cost of moving products and services across borders and boosted productivity in this country and around the world. Digitally traded goods and services are growing and are expected to continue to grow. According to a recent study conducted by the International Trade Commission, in 2012, U.S. digitally intensive firms sold nearly $1 trillion or nearly 6 percent of our total GDP in goods and services over the Internet. About one-quarter of those sales were small and medium-sized enterprises. The people behind these numbers are everyday Americans just trying to compete in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Fortunately, our TPA bill includes upgraded negotiating objectives that reflect the world in which we now live. To address this new digital economy, our bill for the first time recognizes the growing significance of the Internet as a trading platform in international commerce. It would also extensively update and expand the e-commerce directives from the 2002 TPA bill to require U.S. negotiators to ensure that all trade agreement obligations, rules, disciplines, and commitments apply to digital trade and that digitally traded goods and services receive no less favorable treatment than comparable goods and services and that they are classified to ensure the most liberal trade treatment possible. The free flow of data across borders is critical to facilitating digital trade, as it allows U.S. companies to identify market opportunities, innovate and develop new goods and services, maintain supply chains, and serve their customers around the world. Unfortunately, an increasing number of governments are considering or imposing restrictions on cross-border dataflows, including requirements that U.S. companies store and process data locally. Our bill directs U.S. negotiators to ensure that our trading partners refrain from such restrictions and requirements. It also includes several new and expanded negotiating objectives to address common regulatory issues faced by U.S. companies in the digital economy. For example, the bill directs U.S. negotiators to seek greater openness, transparency, and convergence of standards, development processes, and to encourage the use of international and interoperable standards. I would urge any of my colleagues who oppose this bill to explain how they plan to give American workers and businesses in the digital economy an opportunity to thrive in an increasingly competitive marketplace--global marketplace, really. They talk about wanting to preserve jobs and protect Americans, but existing trade rules were written for a time long since passed. Beyond transitioning our country into this increasingly competitive world of technological growth, our TPA bill also takes a bipartisanship, bicameral approach to improving intellectual property rights protections. Protecting intellectual property is critical to the development of the digital economy, just as it is critical to overall economic growth. Our Founding Fathers believed intellectual property to be so fundamental to America's future prosperity that they explicitly granted Congress the congressional authority to protect it. Since Jefferson's moldboard plow and Eli Whitney's cotton gin, American intellectual property has spurred on American job growth and prosperity, creating more competitive businesses here--right here in America. Intellectual property, be it for mechanical products, software, or semiconductors, creates value for individuals and American businesses. In turn, these businesses create jobs, spur economic growth, and enrich our culture. The simply truth is, the countries that strengthen intellectual property rights enjoy great economic benefits. They attract more investment, technology transfers, increased immigration, and ultimately more prosperity for their citizens. Yet, despite these fundamental truths, intellectual property protections around the globe are often fundamentally deteriorating and continually at risk. Our economic and strategic competitors are well aware that the United States leads the world in innovation, but all too often they fail to understand why. Instead of fostering policies to advance innovation, they seek shortcuts to undermine and even steal American intellectual property. The tools they employ are numerous and very sophisticated. Some of these tools include nontransparent reimbursement and licensing regimes, unfair standard setting, and burdensome regulations. All of these mechanisms are designed specifically to pry away some of the most innovative and productive parts of our economy, tearing away the competitive edge our American businesses have worked so hard to create and stunting what could be a much more liberal playing field. If enacted, our bill would represent a significant step forward in strengthening the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world. It calls for robust intellectual property rules, building on the strong intellectual property standards found in the prior 2002 TPA law. This includes requiring that trade agreements meet the same high standards found in U.S. law. Our bill also requires countries to fully implement the TRIPS Agreement, particularly the enforcement obligations. To address the challenges and opportunities created by the digital economy, our bill would ensure that right holders are able to keep pace with technological developments by controlling and preventing unauthorized use of their works online. A growing problem around the world is that foreign governments are stealing valuable technology from U.S. businesses. This type of trade- secret theft threatens to diminish U.S. competitiveness around the globe. It puts American jobs at risk and poses threats to U.S. national security. To address this problem, our bill calls for an end to government involvement in intellectual property rights violations, including piracy and cyber theft of trade secrets. The bill also ensures that governments limit the unnecessary collection of trade-secret information and protects any information they do collect from disclosure. This is the first time TPA legislation has addressed these issues--these very important issues. The bill also requires the elimination of the price controls and reference pricing, which are used by many countries to deny full market access to innovative pharmaceuticals and medical devices. The bill further includes a new provision to direct the U.S. negotiators to ensure that regulatory reimbursement regimes that make pricing and reimbursement decisions are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full-market access for innovative pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Our bill also calls for the elimination of measures that require U.S. companies to locate their intellectual property abroad as a market access or investment condition. Finally, this legislation includes an expanded capacity-building objective, directing the administration to work with U.S. trading partners to strengthen not only their labor laws, as was provided for in 2002, but also their intellectual property rights laws. Once again, we live in an economic and technological environment that is very different from the one that existed in 2002. Advances in Internet and mobile technologies have transformed whole sectors of our economy. Our bill positions our country to take advantage of the opportunities and face the challenges presented by the 21st century economy, and that is one of the many reasons why it should pass. I urge each of my colleagues to work with me to help move this bill forward so we can negotiate strong trade agreements that serve today's economy as well as set the stage for America's next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators. I yield the floor.